Conversation with a Creationist

This convo kept me up until 2am last night. I'm probably wasting my time on this one, which is why I was reluctant to get drawn back into the evolution vs creationism talk the other night, but when we get together it's usually inevitable.

Is there anything I can do to gain some ground? I think I need to be quicker on the draw. She types like a demon.

Dinosaurs and Carbon DatingOutlaw (9:39:53 PM): my question though, when it comes to this ancient pottery, is where is the other evidence that people lived with dinosaurs? why weren't some dinosaurs domesticated, as mammals are? why can't dinosaur fossils be carbon dated like human bodies from the last 5,000 years? carbon has a half-life of 7,500 years and so if dinosaurs lived in that time period their fossils should be able to be carbon dated.YEC (9:40:46 PM): Well the Ica stones show the people riding them, others they're fighting them. The stories of 'dragons' sometimes match up with Dinosaurs. There was an account from the dark ages of a large dragon with plates on its back and 'nails' on its tail 'attacking' a farm.YEC (9:40:53 PM): The farmers killed it- no one was harmed.YEC (9:41:31 PM): And Carbon Dating's been disproven. XD; It's a faulty way of dating things. Even then- we find soft tissue and blood in dino bones, but you hear little of it.Outlaw (9:41:48 PM): no it hasn't. they used carbon dating on the shroud of Turin.YEC (9:41:52 PM): There's still sightings of one in the Congo in Africa, the natives know it as a real creature.YEC (9:41:59 PM): Doesn't mean it's accurateYEC (9:42:07 PM): There was a blind study done with two samplesYEC (9:42:12 PM): From the exact same spotYEC (9:42:19 PM): They put one on top, one on the bottom and sent it inYEC (9:42:26 PM): One dated 5000 years, the other 4000YEC (9:42:43 PM): when they switched the bags (Same samples) just moved one on top- it came out the same 5000 years and 4000 yearsOutlaw (9:43:15 PM): that's not a very large difference on the geologic time scale. (Note: Yes, I should have noticed that the shroud was actually dated to a period between the 1400s and the 1500s. I blame it on my friend’s speedy typing.) you're missing the point of what i'm saying though. they were able to date those samples because they contained carbon. there is no carbon in dinosaur bones. you couldn't carbon date them even if you tried.Outlaw (9:44:07 PM): this means that all the carbon atoms in the dinosaur bones have decayed away, making them older than 7,500 years, or that there was never any carbon in them to begin with.YEC (9:44:40 PM): Carbon dating relies on the climate remaining at a constant. Constant pressure, constant humidity, exposure, etc. Everyone with two brain cells knows that there is no constant. They find fish bones on top of mountains, closed clams on top of mountains.YEC (9:45:22 PM): But we cling to carbon dating because it gives us a way to look past evidence. Like I said- blood cells don't live thousands of years. Millions of years is impossible.Outlaw (9:46:28 PM): but here's the problem: people who died 5000 years ago left behind bones that can be carbon dated. dinosaur bones, taken from the same location - but in a different geologic layer - cannot be carbon dated because their bones contain no carbon. from the same exact location, under the same exact conditions. what does this tell you?
[…]Outlaw (10:06:08 PM): all i'm asking is why a human body and a dinosaur body from the same location would have different levels of carbon.Outlaw (10:06:48 PM): by which i mean, the human has SOME and the dino has NONE.YEC (10:07:06 PM): Can't answer that one. I told you my theory (Along with the fact that -carbon dating is inaccurate-) but as I said- we won't know till I die. They could have died years apart, maybe even hundreds, but certainly not millions.

Dinosaur TracksYEC (10:07:13 PM): Why do we find human tracks next to dino tracks?YEC (10:07:19 PM): On the same layer? "Dating" the same time?YEC (10:07:41 PM): Or on occasion, human skeletons in layers 'dating' the same as species that were 'extinct' millions of years before we apparently showed up?Outlaw (10:07:56 PM): usually they're not human tracks but distorted dinosaur tracks. modern game animals sometimes leave tracks that resemble human tracks and are confused with Bigfoot tracks by over-eager hunters.
[…]YEC (10:08:32 PM):http://www.creation-vs-evolution.us/visual-evolution/human-footprin...YEC (10:08:37 PM): Doesn't look like any monkey I've seen.Outlaw (10:09:01 PM): those both look like fakes.YEC (10:09:11 PM):http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/images/Cretaceous_Footprint_1.jpg Huh. Dino over human footprintYEC (10:09:13 PM): Of course they doYEC (10:09:17 PM): They destroy evolutionYEC (10:09:24 PM): But Lucy is legit.Outlaw (10:09:51 PM): *sigh* no, they don't.Outlaw (10:10:05 PM): if evolution is wrong then i would like to know.Outlaw (10:10:33 PM): i just don't think the evidence for creation is very good or comprehensive.YEC (10:11:17 PM): Those are casts made of the tracks. They have photos all over the internet, google it. Scientists (Evolutionists) sit and scratch their heads saying "This isn't possible- those are human tracks and these are dino tracks but that's not right. Dinos died out millions of years ago."YEC (10:11:29 PM): That's the theory. You can't prove that any more than you can prove that unicorns don't exist.

I have no idea what you’re talking aboutYEC (9:51:02 PM): Another question is why do we have fossils of fish giving birth?YEC (9:51:06 PM): That doesn't take millions of years.Outlaw (9:51:13 PM): they died giving birth, obviously.YEC (9:51:25 PM): Or clams closed? When Clams die, they open. They were fossilized almost instantly.YEC (9:51:32 PM): Or a wilting fern? It fossilized wilting?Outlaw (9:52:02 PM): what? why not? what about Pompeii?YEC (9:52:13 PM): Or bent ferns? We find fish eating fish?Outlaw (9:52:35 PM): your argument doesn't make any sense. why would this be evidence against evolution?YEC (9:52:40 PM): Yes exactly. It does- when it's convenient. Most scientists deny that dinosaurs were fossilized quickly.YEC (9:52:48 PM): It happened quickly, yes?YEC (9:53:07 PM): Which meant something HUGE happened at the same time to fossilize everything suddenly while life went on. I say it was a flood.Outlaw (9:53:08 PM): *facepalm* they were BURIED quickly, not fossilized quickly.YEC (9:53:13 PM): Fish buried?YEC (9:53:15 PM): Clams?YEC (9:53:18 PM): On top of mountains?Outlaw (9:53:27 PM): plate-tectonics.YEC (9:53:50 PM): On top...of mountains?Outlaw (9:53:56 PM): are you aware of how mountains form?YEC (9:53:58 PM): That's some heavy pate movement.YEC (9:54:00 PM): Yes I amYEC (9:54:27 PM): Way I see it- "The fountains of the deep" (Water under the crust, we still see these in the hot water vents under the ocean) burst open.Outlaw (9:54:33 PM): plates come together and push them up. if the section of the plate forming the mountain used to be a sea bed, the sea bed is forced up, along with whatever fossils it might hold.YEC (9:54:38 PM): Caused those plates to shift and form mountains.YEC (9:54:44 PM): But it wouldn't take millions of years to make those clams.YEC (9:55:00 PM): They say mountains formed slowlyYEC (9:55:04 PM): But the clams were fossilized quicklyOutlaw (9:55:26 PM): .... no, they were buried quickly.YEC (9:56:04 PM): Alright let's play your game then. Why did the plates suddenly shift at such a rapid rate?Outlaw (9:56:15 PM): they didn't.Outlaw (9:56:39 PM): plates don't randomly speed up and slow down. i think you've misunderstood the concept.YEC (9:57:25 PM): And the fish eating other fish? Giving birth?YEC (9:57:32 PM): With their fins relaxed?Outlaw (9:57:33 PM): why do you keep coming back to this?YEC (9:57:39 PM): You've not answered :3Outlaw (9:57:45 PM): i don't understand your point.YEC (9:57:48 PM): You're trying to dance around and feed me bsOutlaw (9:57:59 PM): no i'm not, i don't understand what this proves or disproves.YEC (9:58:25 PM): Fish, when startled, flare their fins. We find fish perfectly composed either eating or giving birth. They were taken by complete surprise. We find these fish on the same 'layer' as humans, dinos, deer, clams, you name it.YEC (9:58:38 PM): We also find 'links' between species in the wrong orderOutlaw (9:59:04 PM): they're perfectly composed because they died.

Beaver-ducksYEC (11:20:38 PM): Hence the platypusYEC (11:20:45 PM): That's God showing he has a sense of humorYEC (11:20:50 PM): Along with Jim CarryOutlaw (11:21:01 PM): dude, the platypus is not evidence against evolution. it's evidence for evolution. and Jim Carry is an abomination. XDYEC (11:21:20 PM): Was there a platysaurus?Outlaw (11:21:21 PM): he was good in the 90s but that was it!YEC (11:21:24 PM): Or a platyfish?Outlaw (11:21:33 PM): or platybird??Outlaw (11:21:38 PM): platyshark?Outlaw (11:21:41 PM): what's your point?YEC (11:21:50 PM): How does it support evolution?YEC (11:22:01 PM): It's a mammal that lays eggs and shoots poison from its feet XDOutlaw (11:22:09 PM): it's an intermediate between reptiles and mammals. has fur, lays eggs, produces milk, rears its young.YEC (11:22:20 PM): Yet it's a mammalOutlaw (11:22:29 PM): yet it lays eggs.YEC (11:22:33 PM): Not a reptile, it's definitely not in-betweenOutlaw (11:22:40 PM): what other mammal lays eggs? XDYEC (11:22:50 PM): None. What reptile is warm blooded?Outlaw (11:22:57 PM): dinosaurs!YEC (11:23:02 PM): Can we prove that?Outlaw (11:23:18 PM): well, a warm blooded brontosaurus wouldn't work. its heart would stop at night.Outlaw (11:23:30 PM): the effort to pump all that blood up the animal's huge neck would be too much.YEC (11:24:05 PM): We can assume that, but we can't prove it. :3 Did dinos produce milk>?YEC (11:24:19 PM): Platypus defies science. XD People thought it was a hoax originally.Outlaw (11:24:34 PM): it does not defy science you silly.YEC (11:24:40 PM): It's hardly the missing link between reptiles and mammals, or an in-between.Outlaw (11:24:59 PM): well it's not a missing link, that's for sure, because there's no such thing.Outlaw (11:25:22 PM): evolution works along a gradient of variations over long periods of time.Outlaw (11:25:43 PM): you're closely related to your mother and more distantly related to your grandmother and so on.Outlaw (11:26:17 PM): naturally there comes a point in your family tree where you'd find a person who looks nothing like you. where's the missing link between her and you? you couldn't find one.YEC (11:27:12 PM): still doesn't really answer how the platypus supports evolution. XD I understand how evolution works.YEC (11:27:27 PM): In quite a few cases, they line up the animals by what looks right, not by how they were found or dated.Outlaw (11:27:31 PM): do you know what a synapsid is?YEC (11:28:08 PM): Yes, a fun word for 'mammal-like reptile'YEC (11:28:21 PM): But it's a mammal-like-MAMMAL. XDOutlaw (11:28:33 PM): a dimetrodon is a mammal?YEC (11:29:09 PM): We assumeOutlaw (11:29:35 PM): a scalely, sail backed dimetrodon... is a mammal.Outlaw (11:29:39 PM): that's what you are saying.YEC (11:30:07 PM): No, I'm saying there's no way we can know if any dinosaur was cold or warm bloodedYEC (11:30:11 PM): the dimetrodon includedOutlaw (11:30:29 PM): that's not the point. there are more characteristics common to mammals than the bloody temperature of their... blood. XDYEC (11:30:37 PM): A lot of the assumptions made on the creature were based on pre-existing evolutionist theories.YEC (11:31:01 PM): True, but we're genetically close to bananas as well. Doesn't prove that I'm related to a bananaOutlaw (11:31:24 PM): there's the inner ear, the canines, the secondary palate - all features known to exist in mammals that also exist in synapsids.Outlaw (11:31:39 PM): so it's just a coincidence, then.YEC (11:31:47 PM): It doesn't really prove that they're connectedOutlaw (11:31:54 PM): meaning it's entirely by chance.YEC (11:32:12 PM): Meaning it's a different species than dinos or mammals- we never considered that one.Outlaw (11:32:26 PM): it is entirely, 100% a coincidence that humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA.YEC (11:33:04 PM): Or pigs?YEC (11:33:12 PM): Are we related to pigs?Outlaw (11:33:18 PM): yes, because pigs are mammals.Outlaw (11:33:36 PM): is it a coincidence that humans and pigs are mammals?Outlaw (11:33:53 PM): they just both HAPPENED to be warm blooded and produce placental offspring?YEC (11:33:57 PM): Nope, god made them that way. But saying that because we're genetically similar to something is hardly proof for anything.YEC (11:34:18 PM): Human DNA is closer to pigs than primatesYEC (11:34:26 PM): So shouldn't we be researching how we evolved from Babe?YEC (11:34:31 PM): Screw Lucy, I have a case here!Outlaw (11:34:37 PM): no it's notYEC (11:35:23 PM): Well we use pig hearts instead of chimp hearts for transplantsYEC (11:35:34 PM): We could use another evolutionist favorite- tools.YEC (11:35:36 PM): Crows use tools!Outlaw (11:35:38 PM): probably because chimps are sentient.YEC (11:35:41 PM): So do we. We must have been crows.Outlaw (11:35:49 PM): though pigs may be too...YEC (11:35:52 PM): Pigs are pretty sentient, they're more intelligent than dogsYEC (11:36:00 PM): They just taste better. XD

The Scientific MethodYEC (11:59:01 PM): We won't know for certain, science changes all the timeYEC (11:59:14 PM): Ancient dictionary defined unicorns as a real beast until fairly recentlyOutlaw (11:59:39 PM): when you say that "science changes all the time" i have to think that you don't actually understand how science operates.YEC (11:59:56 PM): "Science" changes all the time.YEC (12:00:13 AM): A while ago, it was 'known' that putting leaches on you made you better because it was 'known' that bad blood made you sick.Outlaw (12:00:26 AM): that's not science, that's superstition.YEC (12:00:27 AM): That was considered 'science' and if you questioned it, you were a loony. XDYEC (12:00:39 AM): Science was also throwing a witch into a streamOutlaw (12:00:45 AM): that's also superstition.YEC (12:00:48 AM): back then it was 'science'Outlaw (12:01:00 AM): no, it wasn't. that's an over simplification.YEC (12:01:11 AM): They thought what Michelangelo was superstition and insanityYEC (12:01:14 AM): turned out- it was scienceYEC (12:01:32 AM): I'm just saying that what we define as science isn't a constantYEC (12:01:43 AM): Science to me is asking questions and trying to answer themOutlaw (12:01:52 AM): and HOW do you answer them?YEC (12:01:54 AM): Science to my evolution buddy is stating 'known' facts.YEC (12:02:02 AM): Depends on the questionYEC (12:02:32 AM): Do unicorns exist? Well you'd have to catch one or find a corpse to prove they do.YEC (12:03:08 AM): My old science teacher always said "You can't prove something doesn't exist. I could say sea monkeys exist. You can't prove they don't, you can say it's unlikely- but you can't prove it. You can only prove something exists."YEC (12:03:19 AM): She liked to say there were pixies in the projectorYEC (12:03:24 AM): and when you opened it, they disappearedOutlaw (12:03:35 AM): yeah, okay, but let's say you want to prove intelligent design. how would you go about doing that?YEC (12:03:38 AM): so you couldn't prove they didn't exist because they disappeared.YEC (12:04:01 AM): Hit Jesus up for his dad's cell phone number? :shot:YEC (12:04:08 AM): It's the same question- prove God does not exist. XDOutlaw (12:04:12 AM): no it's not.YEC (12:04:15 AM): I can't prove he exists until I meet him personallyYEC (12:04:20 AM): But you can't prove he doesn't existOutlaw (12:04:26 AM): i'm asking you to PROVE intelligent design. not that god did it, just that an intelligent force was behind it.Outlaw (12:04:33 AM): that's not proving a negative.YEC (12:04:50 AM): It's essentially the same. I can't prove it unless I run out and find the designer.YEC (12:04:56 AM): You can't prove unicorns are real until you have oneYEC (12:05:03 AM): But you can't prove there is no creatorYEC (12:05:05 AM): or no unicornsOutlaw (12:05:18 AM): *Sigh* hang on, can i just explain science to you for a second here? without you interrupting me? pretty please?YEC (12:05:30 AM): XD I know what you're going to say.YEC (12:05:37 AM): Because I gagged it down through high school into college.Outlaw (12:05:45 AM): trust me, this will be different.YEC (12:05:56 AM): I highly doubt it. :3YEC (12:06:26 AM): The literal definition is:YEC (12:06:26 AM): a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.Outlaw (12:07:09 AM): please shut up for a second, i'm not going to talk about that. i'm going to talk about the scientific method.YEC (12:07:19 AM): I know the scientific method.YEC (12:07:25 AM): As you pointed out earlier- I'm not an idiot.Outlaw (12:07:26 AM): i don't think that you do.YEC (12:07:36 AM): You don't -think- that I do.YEC (12:07:40 AM): Now we're playing logic.YEC (12:08:00 AM): If you're going to lose your temper I'm going to find something else to do. :3Outlaw (12:08:11 AM): you haven't showed me any evidence that you do. you are intelligent, but you talk about science like someone who worked on a farm their whole life.Outlaw (12:08:36 AM): i'm trying not to get frustrated, but it's difficult when you keep interrupting me.YEC (12:08:39 AM): And you talk about science like someone that's never worked a day in their life. :3YEC (12:09:36 AM): I've never failed a science class in my life. I've not gone into the complicated things, I'll admit, but I've had to write essays on scientific process. I've done hours and hours of labs following the process. In the end you're asking a question and giving an answer.Outlaw (12:09:59 AM): say you have a hypothesis that A = B. so you do some research first, to see what other scientists have found out about A and B. now that you're acquainted with the subject you design an experiment. your hypothesis that A is = to C, knowing already that C = B. so you do your experiment. turns out you were wrong. A is not = to C. you throw your experiment out and design a new one.YEC (12:10:02 AM): I've schooled from coast to coast- and then overseas. I've heard evolution, I've heard creation, I've heard....a combo of the two.YEC (12:10:11 AM): Good job, it's a repeat of biology 101.Outlaw (12:10:22 AM): so why do you have a problem with science changing?YEC (12:10:26 AM): :claps: I knew that. Beyond my point.YEC (12:10:30 AM): I never said thatYEC (12:10:34 AM): That is an assumption on your part.Outlaw (12:10:36 AM): yes, you have.YEC (12:10:44 AM): I'm saying that you can't say 'this is fake science'Outlaw (12:10:48 AM): you've said that science text books change ever year as a criticism of evolution.Outlaw (12:11:05 AM): it's not real science if it doesn't use the scientific method.YEC (12:11:07 AM): Yes- because they're using evolution as the foundation of teaching in certain topics.YEC (12:11:44 AM): If it's a theory, why are we using it? It's inconsistent, why are we teaching it as fact? There are arguments against it, why are we smothering them>? That's not science.YEC (12:11:50 AM): Science is looking at -everything-YEC (12:11:58 AM): Not going "Well that doesn't fit my theory, so I'm going to ignore it."Outlaw (12:12:35 AM): that's not what evolution is though. it is a consistent theory. the reason it's taught is because it is so vigorous and it hasn't failed any tests.YEC (12:12:47 AM): It's failed nearly all testsOutlaw (12:12:54 AM): like what?YEC (12:13:03 AM): "How do you date the rock?"
"By the index fossils."
"How do you date the fossils?"
"By the rock"Outlaw (12:13:21 AM): *sigh*YEC (12:13:53 AM): Where's the missing link? Where did the matter come from to create the universe? Why are links between the 'stages of evolution' scrambled in the sediment layers? Why are we finding dinosaurs on ancient pottery? Why are we finding dino foot prints over man foot prints?YEC (12:14:44 AM): No one can agree how dinosaurs died out. Some say they're not chickens. Yes we just ate a t-rex ladies and gents. Some say they died of their own body gas, some say they got sick.Outlaw (12:14:48 AM): there is no missing link. the big bang isn't part of the theory of evolution. the missing links are not "scrambled." ancient pottery is ancient pottery. those are fakes/misrepresentations.YEC (12:15:09 AM): Evolution is a theory, a very flawed one that cannot be proven.

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

BTW - plates do move quickly and bury things in minutes. Ever hear of an earthquake?

Yeah, I know, but I interpretted her post as suggesting that the plates suddenly started colliding at 25 mph and thrust the clams high into the air, killing them and somehow causing them to fossilize instantly.

I had a similar debate with a theist the other day, but rather than trying to prove evolution, I spent my time debunking his theories one by one. The debate's still going, but why don't you have a look at part 1? You may find it helpful if you like to destroy theists but don't know how to not let them suck you into a hopeless. I think I'm making some headway with this guy. It's quite nice.

I was gonna bring that up, but she types so friggin' fast. Sometimes it's like standing in front of a water hose. We still get along remarkably well given our differences, which is a good thing, otherwise I probably couldn't have these conversations with her.

It takes one line of text to say, "radiocarbon dating is unreliable." It would take pages to try to demonstrate that it works.

Well said.

You might be better off asking them to prove their beliefs, except that it would eventually boil down to faith anyway.

This is my usual tactic with creationists. They generally revert to criticizing evolution or just sputter out a whole lot of assumptions off the cusp and try to pass them off as factual or based on fact, though their logic crumbles if you poke it with a stick.

"Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

I've always said that an evolution/creation debate is like two dogs barking at each other through a fence. The arguments on both sides are passionate but in the end nothing gets accomplished. Yet somehow I find these discussions addicting. I've just got to learn to say no and defuse the conversation before it starts, otherwise I'll be staying up till 2am every night.

"Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

oh, no no no! im afraid you wasted your time trying to prove evolution. Never try to prove ANYTHING to a creationist. Focus on destroying the theory of creationism and picking apart their beliefs piece by peace.

Evolution is science. If their beliefs are destroyed, they are more likely to accept evidence.

Only made it half way through before my brain threatened to die, BUT...

I do recall hearing about some fossils that actually do exactly what person wanted, showed a animal giving birth, and another one being eaten.

I think, from long distant memory, it was some kind of ocean going reptile giving birth, some of them were viviparous. Like a Mosasaur or something, I forget. :(
And the fossil being eaten was a land vertebrate, I think. For some reason I'm associating the memory with transitional pre-whales.

In either case, if I'm remembering these fossils right, they're pretty clear on whats happening.

Just got to the bottom. My advice: give up. I fear you were over run by creationist talking points. Eventually you have to concede that some people are just content to piss in the wind their whole life.